Get Activity Splits

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate read-only safety, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the specific returned data scope (pace, distance, and time per split) and no contradictory side effects are claimed. It does not cover things like units, availability, or authorization, but those are less critical for a simple read-only fetch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loads the action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and returns.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, so a single clarifying sentence is nearly sufficient. The description names the return attributes (pace, distance, time) but leaves minor ambiguity about split types and units, which the sibling get_activity_typed_splits could have helped clarify.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers activityId fully as the required identifier with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no information about parameter format, default behavior, values, or edge cases, so the neutral baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('split/lap data') scoped to a specific activity, while also naming the key returned attributes (pace, distance, time). This clearly distinguishes it from generic activity listing tools, though not from get_activity_typed_splits.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for fetching per-split data for one activity via a required activityId, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_activity_typed_splits or get_activity_details. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.